Professional paper 

UDC [1:615.851]:316.774

COMMUNICATING PHILOSOPHICAL
COUNSELLING

Zoran Kojčić
Croatian Society for Philosophical Practice 
Dalj, Croatia 
zorankojcic@gmail.com
Received: 20 December 2013

During last two decades, means of communication went through sig-

nificant changes. Next to the usual face-to-face communication, new
forms of communication (e.g. free online video conversation services
or social networks) are now integrated in everyday life. In this paper
I shall focus on possibilities offered by such new forms to practice
of philosophical counselling. I shall present three cases of counsel-
ling with clients: face-to-face counselling, online video counselling via
Skype platform, and chat on Facebook. In the last part of the paper
and based on these case-studies, I shall examine advantages and dis­
advantages of each method, show which one is the most convenient
for philosophical counsellors and which one for clients, with a goal of
further development of the profession and its image in public.
Key  words:  philosophical counselling, communication, video conver­
sation, chat

Introduction
During past thirty years many authors presented philosophical
counselling mostly through their own practice and with aims they have
set for themselves. Some of them described methods that were unsuc-
cessful at the time. Others considered the problem of methods as more
important. They defined philosophical counselling as “an approach for
addressing the dilemmas, predicaments, and life issues of the person in
the street through philosophical self-examination” (Lahav, 1996), as a
“helping profession which seeks to understand critically the ideas and
world-views associated with client’s presenting life problems” (Paden,

85
Z. Kojčić: Communicating Philosophical Counselling METODIČKI OGLEDI, 21 (2014) 2, 85–94

1998), and as a “spoken dialogue with people who do not need to have
(academic) training in philosophy” (Harteloh, 2010).
Philosophers cherish conversation, a dialogue with people, which
mostly follows Socrates’ method – asking short questions and asking
for short answers, finding concepts, arguments and reasons for person’s
actions, emotions, or thoughts. Although philosophical counselling can
be considered new and still unexplored philosophical field, some meth-
ods and approaches to clients have already been developed. In all of
them a dialogue – as a bilateral method of communication – plays the
key role. Following Harteloh’s definition, it could be said that philo-
sophical counselling is a (spoken or written) dialogue between a phi-
losopher and a client. Clients present their problems, issues, or situa-
tions to a philosopher-counsellor who assists them in finding a solution
or in clarifying problematic points. Counsellor and client examine the
problem with a help of different philosophical methods, such as ar-
gumentation, rules of logic, conceptualization, questioning, majeutics,
induction, deduction, etc.
Roger Paden (1998) argues that there are many elements which are
distinguishing philosophical counselling from traditional philosophy,
pastoral counselling, humanistic psychotherapy, and traditional psy-
chotherapy. These differences are mostly related to a different nature of
the relationship which is established between philosopher-counsellors
and their clients. We share Paden’s conviction: it is of the utmost im-
portance that clients themselves recognize and define the problem, that
they set it down before the counsellor, and do not fall under the influ-
ence of counsellor’s own views and suggestions towards a solution.

1. Method
In the last 30 years, from the time when German philosopher Gerd
Achenbach introduced philosophical practice and philosophical coun-
selling, many different methods were developed by philosophers across
the world. Most of them come close to the form of Socratic dialogue;
however there are some which are closer to traditional psychotherapy.
For this research I have used a method based on Socratic dialogue, de-
veloped by French philosopher Oscar Brenifier. This method relies on
questioning, argumentation, conceptualization, and contradiction.
At the beginning of his session, Brenifier asks clients to present
their problem in a form of a question. After that initial question which

86
Z. Kojčić: Communicating Philosophical Counselling METODIČKI OGLEDI, 21 (2014) 2, 85–94

was proposed by a client, other questions are asked by a counsellor only

and the client is expected to answer them in short form. This is similar
to situations described in Plato’s dialogues which served as a model
for Brenifier’s method. It is a client-centered method, as it starts with
defining the problem and continues with testing of all possible logi-
cal conclusions and examination of connections between firstly offered
concepts and new ones. This approach analyzes every single issue that
comes out as a result of client’s stream of thoughts. Rather than to limit
his efforts to finding a solution to initial problem, Brenifier examines
every problem that arises from answers of a client. Watching Brenifi-
er’s public philosophical consultations, one gets an impression that his
method is an insightful work; however clients often have a hard time
when they are faced with simple questions which offer limited number
of possible answers. People are generally so accustomed to answer-
ing long and thinking in complicated terms that it bothers them when
they have to decide between simple yes/no answer or define actions or
thoughts with only one adjective.
However, clients seem to respond better at the end of the session,
because they have found out something new about themselves. Each
session ends with five to ten minutes of evaluation, during which Breni-
fier encourages clients to express their thoughts about the session. I
have noticed that in that time clients usually mention something re-
garding their habits and personal characteristic. My goal in the present
research was to help clients to state that at the end of a session they have
solved their initial problem. The goal of philosophical counselling is
not to make clients happy, but to help them solve their problems. Prob-
lem solving skills are very important in this kind of work. Brenifier’s
method, oriented in a slightly different direction, helps us to achieve
that goal.
We start our counselling session in the same way and with the help
of the same philosophical tools – such as argumentation, conceptualiza-
tion, contradiction, induction, deduction, etc. However, the questioning
is focused on finding all possible solutions of the presented problem.
All of those possibilities are then examined in the light of what clients
find suitable. Next step is to discuss ways in which clients can solve
their problem on their own. By examining concepts offered by clients
we can help them to clear the way to greater awareness of the problem
they have, to deal with it, and to find ways to cope with the problem

87
Z. Kojčić: Communicating Philosophical Counselling METODIČKI OGLEDI, 21 (2014) 2, 85–94

once the counselling session is over. At the end, this is what counts the
most – what will clients do, which actions will they take in order to
completely solve their problem in the “real world”. During counselling
session, and after examining ways of solving the problem, clients come
up with their own answers. Solution then seems so simple and just as
if it was there all the time. Some blockade prevented the client to see
it, to understand it, and to perceive it as solution. However, it cannot
be overemphasized how important for a counsellor is not to influence
the clients during their search for solutions; he/she should only assist
them in the process. Counsellor’s task is to detect where the blockade is
located and to reflect it to the clients.
At the end of a session, clients usually state that they have learnt
something new about themselves, about the problem in question and,
finally, that they have reached a solution. Counsellor should then ask
clients about their future plans for dealing with the problem in the “real
world”, outside of their dialogue. After the client’s answer, the session
should be concluded with client’s comments on the method and the dia-
logue itself. This will give clients more confidence in themselves and
during the process of making decisions that lead towards the solution.

2. Three cases
In the following, I shall present three case studies. Each of them is
an example of one possible way of communicating philosophical coun-
selling through Socratic dialogue, with a purpose of finding the most
suitable means of communication. Each of these sessions of philosophi-
cal counselling was with a different client – one male and two females,
in an age range between 26 and 30. One client has a degree in philoso-
phy, the other has some background in philosophy, while the third client
has never had anything to do with philosophy. They all agreed to be in-
cluded in this research. They were aware of other research participants;
however they did not know their identities. Female client Nikolina
wanted me to use her real name, while others gave me their aliases – in
the following I shall refer to the male client as Dramatis Personae, or
shorter Dramatis, and to the second female client as Ingrid. Only Dra-
matis had previous experience in philosophical counselling. Following
the method of Oscar Brenifier, I have asked all clients to present their
problem intended for counselling in a form of a question.

88
Z. Kojčić: Communicating Philosophical Counselling METODIČKI OGLEDI, 21 (2014) 2, 85–94

First philosophical counselling session was with Dramatis, on 18

April 2013. His question was: “Why don’t I take my life into my own
hands?” In the course of our dialogue, Dramatis stated that he felt like
he was acting in front of other people, that he felt alienated from him-
self, and that he did not know what other people expected from him. He
said that he felt pressured by the people who were surrounding him and
that he feared for his independence. Dramatis felt trapped between his
wishes and expectations of others – he confessed that he has done some
things contrary to his wishes only because of the expectations of others.
For example, during our session a question emerged on whether he has
made an independent decision regarding shoes he bought. After one
hour, he came to the conclusion that he was living in an environment
where he was unable to express himself which subsequently prevented
him from taking his life into his own hands. Interesting feature of this
case is that our dialogue was in a written form and that both of us still
have it saved as private messages on our Facebook profiles – our dia-
logue was actually Facebook chat philosophical counselling.
Second philosophical counselling session was with Ingrid, on 19
April 2013. Her question was: “Is forgetting the best way to get over
someone?” In our dialogue, we examined possible ways of “getting
over” and came across concepts such as distance, memory, and the re-
lationship Me–Others. Ingrid feared that she might repeat her own past
actions, which she regretted, so she wanted to know how to prevent
that. At first, there were some contradictions in her statements, but af-
ter the questioning method was applied she overcame them with ease.
Ingrid later expressed her fear that, even though her actions might not
be harmful to others or to herself, others might react in an unpredict-
able way and hurt her, which concerned her greatly. At the end of the
session, Ingrid’s conclusions were that forgetting is not the best way to
get over someone, that we are not in charge for actions of other people,
and that she will examine other possible ways to solve her problem in
the future. We have conducted our dialogue in an old-fashioned face-to-
face session which lasted one hour.
Third philosophical counselling session was with Nikolina, on 6
May 2013. Nikolina asked: “Why am I not more motivated to do phys-
ics?” Only few minutes after the initial question, we came to the prob-
lems of self-doubt, low self-esteem, and confusion. Nikolina stated that
she did not know enough about physics and that she did not achieve as

89
Z. Kojčić: Communicating Philosophical Counselling METODIČKI OGLEDI, 21 (2014) 2, 85–94

much as other people did, which lead her to doubt her intellect. Similar
to Dramatis and Ingrid, Nikolina also positioned herself in relation with
others – she compared her academic results and her wishes with results
and wishes of others and subsequently saw herself as inferior to them.
Nikolina wanted to feel passionate towards physics and motivated in
some way she could appreciate. She mostly spoke about the relation-
ship between knowledge, ability, and desires. On another level she re-
ferred to academic arrogance, titles, and school system in general. Her
final conclusion was that she needed more external influences which
would motivate her to do physics. We have conducted our one hour ses-
sion using Skype video-call.

3. Means of communication
In the following, I shall examine means of communication used in
these three cases, starting with the Facebook chat philosophical coun-
selling. Facebook chat tries to mimic spoken conversation in written
form. Dramatis and I have agreed that both of us will be completely
concentrated on our dialogue and disregard any outer distractions, just
as we would do in a face-to-face session. However, Dramatis one time
broke this rule, because a family member needed him. In that moment
he gave advantage to other people over our session – in other words,
he chose to focus his attention to people who were in his physical sur-
rounding. We have also agreed that he will not write long answers and
that he will type a bit faster than usual. This aimed to prevent him from
avoiding answering. He broke that promise, too. I had no choice but to
let him write all what he meant, because I had no option to interrupt
him. However, after I have read his complete answer, I tried to make
him write shorter answers, which he sometimes found difficult. Till the
end of the session he managed to follow all rules: he was really fast and
precise in his answers, which only helped him to better understand both
the problem and the solution. At the end he concluded that he was not
happy with the answer to his initial question, but that he was satisfied
with the session itself. This is the answer I often hear after sessions. It
has to be emphasized that philosophical counselling does not promise
happiness at the end of a dialogue; it offers a solution to a problem.
Solutions are not always easy to reach; if we wish to implement steps
leading to them, sometimes we need to make sacrifices, or change our

90
Z. Kojčić: Communicating Philosophical Counselling METODIČKI OGLEDI, 21 (2014) 2, 85–94

views or actions. Dramatis concluded that it was his environment what

prevented him from taking his life into his own hands – he will have to
deal with that problem in future, as he promised to do.
Great advantage of Facebook chat philosophical counselling is that
a counsellor does not need to take any notes, as everything is already
written. Counsellor therefore can at any moment return to every sen-
tence of the client. This is a useful tool in getting back to previous
concepts or thoughts, in connecting the beginning with later parts of the
session, and also in drawing conclusions about clients’ habits, opinions,
worldviews, and actions, which all at the end helps in guiding clients
towards solutions. At this point I shall remind of a Harteloh’s claim
that philosophical counselling can also be a written dialogue, not only
a spoken one (Harteloh, 2010). Facebook chat is a good solution with
clients who are shy or have some sort of social anxiety. Also, it is a good
technical solution for clients who live far away or have technical prob-
lems with video-call platforms. Latest developments in technology are
enabling even the use of mobile devices, now available at the market,
for written communication in philosophical counseling.
Presented case of Facebook chat philosophical counselling also
showed some disadvantages of that model. First, counsellor cannot see
client’s non-verbal reactions to questions, which are usually very help-
ful in counselling process. Counsellor also does not have client’s full
attention, as client can be distracted by events taking place in his physi-
cal surrounding. Finally, counsellor does not have full control over the
counselling process, so clients can easily manipulate their answers. That
is not primarily a problem for a counsellor but for clients who are then
dealing with the issue in less efficient way. The time lost in explaining
to clients that they should keep their answers short and conceptualize
them would be better spent in dealing with their problem.
In a second case, face-to-face communication with Ingrid, her
experience was different from the one of Dramatis. Ingrid was not at
home, she drove to the session to be there on time, she faced the coun-
sellor in person, and she was not in the control of the session in a way
the counsellor was. During our dialogue, Ingrid was calm, self-confi-
dent, and focused on her problem. She has already tried to find a solu-
tion. She was troubled when she was confronted with new situations
or problems; nevertheless she tried to overcome them. During our dia-
logue, Ingrid did not break any rule we agreed upon before the session,

91
Z. Kojčić: Communicating Philosophical Counselling METODIČKI OGLEDI, 21 (2014) 2, 85–94

but she often looked in the direction of my notes. Other than that, our
conversation was like a friendly chat.
Comparison between first two cases shows that face-to-face coun-
selling enabled counsellor greater control over the session – here the
counsellor creates the atmosphere in the comfort of his office, and he/
she is in charge for setting up the rules (giving short answers, yes/no an-
swers when needed, insisting on arguments, concepts, and so on). Dur-
ing the session, he/she can remind the client of any rule that he/she feels
is being violated in any way. Counsellor can influence clients when they
go too far in their answers, change the topic, intentionally avoid answer-
ing, or intervene when they are scared of answering. Counsellor can see
clients’ reactions, hear their answers and act accordingly when they oc-
cur, saving time and energy of counselling for more important issues.
The same goes for the third case, with Nikolina. Nikolina had the
same comfort of her home as Dramatis did, but concerning the control
she was in same position as Ingrid. Any kind of video-call counselling is
good for clients – they feel more relaxed and comfortable, as well as for
the counsellors – they have better control over the dialogue. The same
as any form of Internet communication, video-calls are good way of
communication in philosophical counselling. They are convenient for
clients, since they do not have to travel and could be located worldwide
(naturally, the counselor and the client have to speak the same language).
This model of counselling is more affordable for clients, less stressful,
and provides the clients with the same results. At the same time, it opens
wider market for the counsellor. It is a challenging task as it may include
dealing with different cultures and worldviews, but simultaneously it
offers different perspectives in approaching the problem. As mentioned
earlier, video-call philosophical counselling gives the counsellor con-
trol over the situation and information on client’s reactions – both verbal
and non-verbal communication play an important role in philosophical
counselling. That leaves us with a new question – does philosophical
counselling have to provide convenience for clients or for counsellors?

Conclusion
Some might argue that we should abandon Facebook chat philo-
sophical counselling because video-call is better method for both the
counsellor and the client. However, what should be taken into account

92
Z. Kojčić: Communicating Philosophical Counselling METODIČKI OGLEDI, 21 (2014) 2, 85–94

is that some clients prefer complete anonymity, some might feel scared
before cameras, some are shy, and some might not feel comfortable
with saying their problems out loud. On the other hand, some clients
feel better when they speak with their counsellor face-to-face – maybe
they feel more confident, or they could say more. Regardless of cli-
ents’ reasons, their wishes should be respected. Since the client’s well-
being is of the outmost importance to counsellor, he/she should take
into account client’s preferences regarding the means of communica-
tion. Counsellor should be open to clients’ suggestions and respect their
wishes, so they could express, define, and understand themselves with
the final goal of solving their problem or at least finding the best way
of coping with it.
For the future research I intend to test different communication
models with different clients. The clients themselves can also suggest
their preferred means of communication. Valid results could be reached
only after the research was conducted over a longer period of time and
with more clients. During past decade, philosophers engaged in discus-
sions over definition and methods of philosophical counselling. Con-
sensus is still not reached, which does not surprise given the fact that
the debate on definition and methods of philosophy itself is still ongo-
ing. Philosophical counselling as such has many perspectives which
demand our attention, with the final goal of improved communication
with clients. New means of communication can provide new counsel-
ling methods, improve the practice of counselling, and offer something
new to clients while keeping the same quality to which they were ac-
customed in past.

References
Lydia B. Amir (2013), “Philosophical Practice: A Method and Three Cases”, Prac-
tical Philosophy, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 36–41.
Oscar Brenifier (2006), “Nasrudinn Hodja, a Master of the Negative Way”, in: Jose
Barrientos Restrojo (ed.), Entre historia y orientacion filosofico, Vol. I, Aso-
ciacion de Estudios Humanisticos y Filosofia Practica, pp. 137–154.
Peter Harteloh (2010), “On the Competence of Philosophical Counsellors”, Practi-
cal Philosophy, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 36–47.
Ran Lahav (1996), “What is Philosophical in Philosophical Counselling?”, Jour-
nal of Applied Philosophy, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 259–278.

93
Z. Kojčić: Communicating Philosophical Counselling METODIČKI OGLEDI, 21 (2014) 2, 85–94

Roger Paden (1998), “Defining Philosophical Counseling”, International Journal

of Applied Philosophy, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 1–17.
Robert D. Walsh (2005), “Philosophical Counseling Practice”, Janus Head, Vol. 8,
No. 2, pp. 497–508.

KOMUNICIRATI FILOZOFSKO SAVJETOVANJE

Zoran Kojčić

Sredstva komunikacije znatno su se promijenila tijekom posljednjih dvaju de-

setljeća. Uz uobičajenu komunikaciju licem u lice, novi oblici komuniciranja (npr.
besplatni servisi za video-razgovore ili društvene mreže) danas su integrirani u
svakodnevni život. U ovome radu istražit ću mogućnosti koje novi oblici komu-
nikacije pružaju za praksu filozofskoga savjetovanja. Prezentirat ću tri primjera:
savjetovanje licem u lice, online savjetovanje posredstvom Skype platforme i savje-
tovanje kroz Facebook chat. U zadnjemu dijelu rada i temeljem iskustava iz ovih
primjera, istražit ću prednosti i mane svake od navedenih metoda, pokazati koja
od njih najviše odgovara savjetniku a koja klijentu, s ciljem doprinosa daljnjem
razvoju profesije filozofskoga savjetovanja i načina na koji se ono doživljava u
javnosti.
Ključne riječi: filozofsko savjetovanje, komunikacija, video razgovor, chat

94